Total posts: 2,589
-->
@Alec
Created:
Posted in:
If you can get 9 players, I'll be your 10th. Otherwise, no.
Created:
Posted in:
If you have kids, are thinking about kids, or even if you're not really at the point of thinking about having kids, what would you consider naming your children? What are your ideal baby names?
I'll share mine. I have some traditional Gaelic names to reflect my Irish heritage, quite a few German names to reflect my German heritage, and some Russian names because, to me, they sound attractive. There are also a few names of various extractions included.
Here was my previous thread on this topic. Feel free to comment on other people's proposed baby names.
===============
Boys
Aodhan (pronounced: eyed + ahn)
August
Bastian
Benjamin
Carolus
Cian (pronounced: key + in)
Cyprien
Dakota
David
Dietrich
Eirnin (pronounced: air + nin)
Feidhelm (pronounced: fail + im)
Felix
Finneas
Fionnlagh (pronounced: fin + lay)
Friedrich
Gavin
Grey
Hans
Joachim
Johannes
Kaspar
Kenneth
Kiril
Liam
Marcellus
Marcus
Martin
Nevin
Niall (pronounced: nile)
Nikita
Noah
Paullus
Rhys
Sascha
Sebastian
Theodoric
Theon
Tierney (pronounced: teer + nee)
Wilhelm
Xander
Xavier
Girls
Aibhlinn (pronounced: ave + leen)
Anastasia
Autumn
Callista
Cartimandua
Daimhin (pronounced: daw + veen)
Edeline
Emmaline
Ghislaine
Guinevere
Heike
Hestia
Julia
Katja
Katrina
Lara
Leia
Maebh (pronounced: maeve)
Matilda
Minerva
Nadja
Natascha
Niamh (pronounced: neev)
Oonagh (pronounced: oo + na)
Orfhlaith (pronounced: or + la)
Padme
Raina
Renate
Saoirse (pronounced: seer + sha)
Sinead (pronounced: shin + aid)
Siobhan (pronounced: shiv + ahn)
Tatjana
Tilda
Winter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
My bell button shows that I have notifications even when I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
We’re still a pretty new site. It’ll be awhile before we reach DDO-level activity.
Created:
Besides, I did offer evidence of the social standards I was referring to.
Suffice it to say, there are reasons that most public access shows blur breasts out.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Most lines that are drawn are, at base, arbitrary. That they are arbitrary does not mean that they are not also necessary. But social standards are widely perceivable and largely self-evident, and I don't intend to debate the largely self-evident.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How do we determine social standards?
From any number of social cues. I am honestly not going to get into that debate because it's far too pedantic. Suffice it to say, there are reasons that most public access shows blur breasts out.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So a women can't show her breasts but a man show his?
Adult content is, largely, determined by social standards. We can critique those standards as being biased or lopsided (and I would agree that they are), but until the standards shift, the definition of adult content, as it is widely understood, is not going to change. I am not going to put this site in the progressive vanguard on this issue, simply because I want members of society in general to find this a safe place to be, which requires using social standards to craft site policy, irrespective of the antiquated nature of those standards.
Created:
I think one way to get around the art question is to ask: would the Louvre display it? If not, it’s not allowed.
Created:
Aloha, DART!
Currently, the site's Code of Conduct bans "adult content" from being posted or linked to on the site. But what does "adult content" even mean? I wanted to create this thread to have a discussion on that question.
To me, adult content means, in general, anything that fully depicts the ass, groin, or (for women) breasts in a state of undress. This applies to depictions of humans or other, anthropomorphic entities/creations. A good rule of thumb (though certainly not a cast iron rule) for me is whether the amount of skin would be allowed on an average public beach in the US. Revealing, or even highly revealing states of dress, are not the same as adult content. Bikinis could be considered highly revealing, but they're not really adult content. Similarly, someone in a mankini--though they may be guilty of a serious fashion faux pas--is not adult content either. This all, in my mind, seems fairly common sense.
This issue does get into some thornier grey areas, however. For instance, should artwork depicting nudity be banned? Some of the greatest masterpieces contain full or partial nudity, masterpieces like Botticelli's The Birth of Venus or, more recently, Hockney's Peter Getting out of Nick's Pool. Ancient Greek art is littered with phallic imagery, sex scenes, and other nudity. What do we do about these kinds of images, and how do we distinguish them from other kinds of images containing nudity?
Another thorny area might be sex scenes in movies. Does the fact of what is being portrayed make the content "adult" even if the actors' bodies are not visibly exposed or nude? Or what of clips of movies or shows like Game of Thrones, where nudity is displayed? These obviously have artistic merit, so should they be prohibited?
And absolutely none of this is to touch on the other dimensions of adult content, namely that content which is too violent or disturbing to show to a general audience. We need to consider as well what counts as too violent or disturbing to post on this site.
With these thoughts tossed out there, I'd like to open this thread for general commentary and feedback. These issues may eventually be put to a MEEP, but right now, I am just seeking constructive discussion and dialogue. Thanks!
- Bsh1, Chief Moderator
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Right now, I am thinking that the standard ought to be something along the lines of "assess, groins, and breasts (for women) must be clearly clothed, obscured, or covered." Such a standard would permit mankinis so long as it was evident that some clothing was present. But, if the picture of the mankini was cropped such that one could not tell that the mankini was there, then it would be adult content.
This might be worth MEEPing. Honestly, the standard has never been tested before. I think there are several dimensions to this question that are important to consider, and it may take me a couple days to draft a comprehensive standard that can be put to a public vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
So, yeah, I am going to say that bare assess and guys drenched in fake cum counts as adult content. It's age-restricted on youtube for a reason. Men's groins and assess should be covered, and women should have their assess, groins, and breasts covered as well. I get that a lot of people are okay with bare assess, but because I cannot age-restrict content on this site, I am just going to include that to be safe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Gay mens adult content sites are full of pics just like it, and you know it.
They're also full of images of clothed men and nude men. By your logic, no one could post pictures of any human being ever. Obviously, your claim is absurd.
You've stated that you're gay and that picture is clearly of a sexual nature for you because there is no other reason for you to post it as your avatar.
The fact that I find the image attractive does not make it porn. There are two logical problems with your claim. First, by your logic, if someone posts a picture they find appealing, it's porn. What if a user has a bustle fetish? Am I, as a mod, seriously supposed to ban images of women in bustles? What if you're into leather Ikea couches? Do I then have to purge those images? Just because I find an image appealing does not mean that it's porn. The fact that I find Chris Hemsworth hot as Thor does not make the Avengers movies porn. Porn is clearly something more serious. Your proposed standard is therefore obviously and problematically over-inclusive regarding what counts as porn. Second, your proposed standard would require me to be a mind-reader. Am I as a mod seriously supposed to know people's sexual paraphilias and interests so that I can ban images they post when those images might be a turn-on for them? A standard such as that would be practically unworkable and overly subjective.
So, rather than fabricating some pathetic excuses about beaches and department stores
I don't see how you can reasonably call something porn if, as I said, you could find it in any Macy's you walk into or in widely disseminated, PG-rated children's movies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You argument here is not responsive to anything I said.
Dissecting an idiom is hardly going to show that the comparison between vets and gays is a fair one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Yes, you expect that from others, but clearly have flagrantly disregarded that expectation yourself.
As I said in my first post on this thread: "Since men can go around in speedos and women can go around in bikinis while using a public beach here in the US, images of people in that state of dress do not qualify as adult content." My picture clearly meets that minimum standard of clothing.
Ultimately, this is not the dark ages. Prudish requirements to have men and women clothed from head-to-toe are unrealistic and outmoded. Society today generally accepts that men and women need only to cover to the extent I just noted in order for images of them to be generally disseminated. Walk into any Kohl's or Macy's, for example, and you'll see those kinds of images. Look at kids movies like the Sandlot or Hotel Transylvania 3 and you'll see people in those states of dress. Obviously, then, society doesn't consider those states of dress to be porn.
there are public beaches that do allow it
I am talking about an on balance consideration. It's a good rule of thumb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
If you read my full post, you'd see that there is a basic minimum of clothing which I expect images on this site to have. Nudity is not acceptable, and would be banned as adult content. The average public beach does not allow full nudity. There's an element of common sense here that all users should be able to deploy.
Created:
Posted in:
But, I did not call out anyone or refer to anyone, I referred entirely to the words themselves.
Actually, you never referred to any specific words. What you did was a generalized attack (which doesn't require mentioning any user specifically) which is prohibited in the COC.
As to everything else you said: you opened the door.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
For me, speaking as a site moderator, what distinguishes adult content from non-adult content is whether, on average, something might be allowed on a public beach here in the US. Since men can go around in speedos and women can go around in bikinis while using a public beach here in the US, images of people in that state of dress do not qualify as adult content. By this standard, my avatar clearly does not qualify as adult content.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The issue with that argument is the phrase itself. "Display of stupidity" implies that users were displaying their stupidity through the things they said. Contextual factors, such as the fact that you did not clearly specify an idea you were critiquing, only make your case weaker. But, as I said in my messages to you, this is only one of several problematic incidents recently. Ultimately, what is clear is that you need to learn how to navigate the forums without hurling out personal attacks left and right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Castin is not, nor ever has been, empowered to remove posts. As Mike just said, if a post was removed, you should have received a notification to that effect. Did you receive such a notification?
Also, I have never said that perm-bans were used only on doxxers. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this score, but I have always maintained that doxxing is an offense which would earn an instant perm-ban, but not that it was the only offense which could culminate in a perm-ban.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
My remarks were confined to critiquing a specific presumption, and were not critiquing the users. Your remarks, regarding a "display of stupidity," were certainly directed at the users, mocking them for their views. It's a very fine distinction, but it is alright to critique a particular view as "ignorant," but it is not okay to extrapolate from that that the user himself is "ignorant." Your remark, in context, was clearly doing the latter. Nevertheless, if you felt like my own remarks crossed the line, feel free to report them for Castin to review.
Beyond this comment, I am not going to debate publicly moderation's comments to you on this incident. Flame all you want, but your remarks here are more of a performance than any real attempt at engagement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You said Veterans. Go read the sentence I replied to.
What you're doing here is comparing apples to oranges. Vets are a group delineated by what they have done. Gay people are a group delineated by some kind of innate characteristic of who they are. You can't fairly compare the two groups, because they are not similarly delineated and because they overlap significantly. I have never met anyone who has ever made the claim that "gays" in general somehow have done more for this country than "vets." That kind of nonsense doesn't sound like something liberals actually say; instead it sounds like something conservative commentators accuse liberals of saying.
If you want a fair comparison, compare Vets to political activists. Then we can have an honest discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's so annoying and it pisses off. Veterans die everyday to protect our country. A gay person does not die for our protection.
On the facetious side, this sentence makes no sense. Veterans are done fighting, hence why they are called "veterans." They are not dying every day to protect our country. They might be dying every day, but not in active, armed defense of the US.
On the serious side, this comment is clearly wrong. Gay servicemen and servicewomen are fighting and dying to protect this country, and serve in our armed forces and government to make this nation a better place. The obviously false presumption that comes through in your remarks that gay people matter less than veterans because they haven't fought for this country or because they are unwilling to fight for this country is ignorant, damaging, and strikingly prejudiced.
Created:
Posted in:
Virt says that he hasn't deleted any of your posts either, so I am rather vexed as to what you could be talking about, since only myself, Mike, and Virt have the power to remove posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Goldtop
First, there is not, nor has there ever been, an RO between Supa and Goldtop. Second, "defending yourself" is not, and is never, an excuse to violate the COC or to violate an RO. If someone is attacking you, the appropriate response is always to inform moderation and to allow them to address the situation. Thirdly, y'all need to calm down and chill out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I have not deleted any of your posts recently. Can you PM me any relevant information about whatever you've been experiencing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That’s a sensible feature for sites geared to Q&A like Quora, but not really for a debate site. Our goal is to encourage discussion and disagreement, not to discourage by indicating that the OP is satisfied by a response and no further discourse is needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you referring to the kind of thing where the OP selects their preferred reply? They used to do that on Yahoo! Answers (which dates me a bit, I feel).
Created:
Posted in:
Not really. I don’t do comics or videogames. Best answer I have is Dumbledore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Below are some links with possibilities, but honestly, this would be my top choice: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/9c/e8/cd/9ce8cd3d0c4893e56057119f086fdd9e.jpg
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As I said, we already had an hours long discussion of subjectivity in moderation which I am not interested in re-doing. I am not interested in re-doing precisely because it was super long, and I have a feeling this one would be too. If you have questions, our prior conversation is out there to be found.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That last sentence was ungrammatical and difficult to understand. Please re-phrase.
As for the general point you're making: I brought it up because it is the most similar thing to your complaint which moderation can act on. Besides, moderation has talked to users about spam. A gentle word to an offender might suffice instead of an official warning, and I was only referring to official warnings in my earlier post. The point that I am making is this: moderation can intervene in spam, and is willing to do so "gently" in most cases but only severely in some. Certainly, that is nowhere near what you're suggesting, but it gives users some limited recourse to attempt to prevent artificial derailments of their threads. That's really the best that is on offer.
Created:
Posted in:
And, to be really clear, I do not believe I have ever issued an official warning to anyone *just* for spamming. Those very few people with whom I've raised the issue of spamming in an official warning have had it raised as an aggravating or ancillary factor. So, unless someone went really crazy, I doubt I'd do much about spamming, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am not going to speak for Ram or, in this case, about him. You need to talk to him about his responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If we have a standard for saying a flat earther is wrong we can also have a standard for what can be deemed as useful to the topic at hand...You already infringe on freedom of speech by taking a stance against doxxing. Why do you infringe on that basis but not on the basis of making sure people stay on topic?
Of course site rules impinge on free speech. The problem, as I said, is that your policy would be "too great an infringement of free speech to implement." The issue here is one of degree, and your argument treats it as some sort of absolute.
At its core, this site is about conversation and debate. Interference in the natural flow of conversation and debate should be kept the barest minimum, and not present at all if possible. The barest minimum in this sense is to protect users from harm. Doxxing is a pretty substantial harm. You being annoyed that a flat earther is making some idiotic argument or tangential point is not a substantial harm.
And, importantly, it's not my job as a moderator to pronounce certain views right or wrong--esp. on a debate site. Their are going to be genuine flat earthers out there, and they, like any other user, have the right to debate and discuss those opinions. If they choose to stubbornly defend those positions in the face of superior counterarguments, then you face a choice: engage or walk away. That choice is yours, but the fact that you face that choice or that it annoys you that you do is not nearly sufficient justification for me to take away their right to engage on this site. 90% of the time, even on here, arguments don't change people's opinions, and probably 90% of the users on here, myself included, have made stupid arguments or back-peddled in order to salvage our views from argumentative salvos.
Ultimately, then, my job as a moderator is to keep the peace, it's not to evaluate the merits of users beliefs. Anything else would cause me to encroach too much on the free speech here. I can intervene to prevent abusive speech, but I am not going to intervene to prevent dumb or stubborn or annoying speech.
Black should realize racism is something they have to deal with in a social setting.
Talk about a false equivalency and strawman...
This again comes down to issues of abuse vs. annoyance, and it's pretty clear that an interjection is nowhere near racism on anyone's scale of social acceptability.
You are not for imposing standards upon forums but you are for removing spam
Organic conversation shifts and changes. There may be deliberate attempts to redirect organic conversation, but those attempts do not necessarily preclude the conversation from going where it shall. Spam is an artificial attempt to redirect that organic conversation, and it is so severe or frequent that it prevents the natural flow of the conversation from taking place, or prevents any conversation taking place.
We've debated the whole subjectivity thing before, and we did so quite thoroughly. I am not keen on rehashing it atm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you for this wild west of anything goes forum page instead of thoughtful conversations if so why?
This is certainly not the Wild West where anything goes. Most bans are spurred by conduct that has occurred in the forums, and there are clear limitations on what users can and cannot do in the forums. That moderation is not as restrictive as you might want them to be is not the same as "anything goes."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Ultimately, your request is both too subjective and too great an infringement of free speech to implement, though I sympathize with your frustration. Threads are conversations, and conversations naturally shift focus as people debate, interject, ebb, and flow. IRL, you might start out talking to a friend about animal rights, and wind up talking about nuclear disarmament. This kind of refocusing is normal, organic, and largely unavoidable. It is not moderation's job to keep conversations narrowly focused to the OP topic like some Nazi schoolteacher.
While I do appreciate that random comments and interjections are problematic for someone seeking a narrowly-focused discourse, they're something all people have to deal with in any social setting. If someone is deliberately trying to derail a thread with incessant, non-topical posts, then that could be spam, and spam is something moderation can take action to stop. But, unless the content qualifies as spam, it would not seem wise to me to impose topicality requirements on forum discussions, or to give OPs power to police their own threads, essentially making all users mini-moderators (diluting actual moderation authority and making exact standards of behavior in the forums unclear).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@David
@Vader
@Ramshutu
@Speedrace
Unfortunately, since neither Virt nor Supa posted their entries, and since Ram dropped out, I am cancelling this event. Having four participants is not enough to run this kind of thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Vader
@Speedrace
The deadline has elapsed. Please submit your entries for adjudication within the next 12 hours.
If anyone else fails to submit or drops out, the competition will be cancelled.
Created: